Submitting to one another levels the power gradient. It means one person doesn't get to impose something on the other person that they don't willingly choose
And you freely admit that you do so with your children all the time, despite the command to submit to one another in love.
And we submit to Christ. Yes, we should do so willingly. But even when we do not want to do so, should we follow our Head? Of course. And Jesus also was our example in that:
Matthew 26:39 39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (NKJV)
I would not say that authority is the same as control. You can have authority but not control someone else.
Control has been your word from the start. There is Headship without control, when there is no sin. There was headship in the garden, as I spelled out at length. But it did not become burdensome until sin.
We are praying that God's will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven. The angels yield to God's direction, and do His will. They don't see it as a terrible burden to submit.
There is authority without control. But there are also times when authority is exercised and does call you to what you may not want to do, but should, because God commands it.
The apostles commanded, through the Spirit. The NT is full of imperatives. You have said you were not sure if Paul spiritually abused his audience. Of course he did not. He exercised delegated authority, with God as his head. And he desired to use the authority to build them up, as God intended, rather than to tear them down. But he still held such authority. He preferred to appeal to Philemon, rather than command. But he still said he was confident in Philemon's obedience. He wished to be innocent of the blood of all men by preaching the whole counsel of God, day and night with tears. That included rebuking, warning, sometimes disciplining. That was not spiritual abuse. He was following his calling.
Overseers are to not Lord it over the flock, but the congregation is still called to yield.
And Paul could still say to Titus to rebuke the Cretans sharply:
Titus 1:10-13 10 For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole households, teaching things which they ought not, for the sake of dishonest gain. 12 One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” 13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, (NKJV)
You have stated that to say to someone that they have to obey, because the Scriptures indicate such, is spiritual abuse. Of course it is not spiritual abuse to point out to someone that if they do such things, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul was not spiritually abusing. He was discharging his duty.
It would not be spiritual abuse for Eli to keep his children from profane wickedness. It would be discharging his duty. But he did not do his duty, and was held accountable.
It would not have been spiritual abuse for Adam to turn Eve from transgression. But he did not do so, and transgressed as well, and he was singled out in Romans 5 as the one man who brought sin and death into the world. He was held accountable. But Christ restored what Adam lost. Christ not only loved, and gave Himself, but also rebuked, also warned, also was faithful to His duty and submitted to the will of the Father.
There is no conflict between love and authority. And it is not real love or leadership to refuse to call people to repentance, or to rebuke, or to say something that might not be what they want to do, but is what God calls them to do.
that is why Paul places the reality of human relationships in Roman society, within the bigger theological context. To remind them that the power of a pater familias is not absolute.
He didn't need to tell the Christians not to kill their wives and expose their infants! He did though tell them that husbands are head, wives should submit, children should obey, fathers should not exasperate, but that all should be done in the love of Christ. But that does not rule out headship.
If he wanted to say Rome claims you have headship, but you don't, he would have. He did not say that. He said exercise headship as does your Head.
But of course Christ was Head over the church.
My point is not to deny that. My point is that if we all are commanded to love one another as Christ loved the Church, there is no headship in that for any of us.
That is your saying, but not that of the text. Christ was head of the church. And He says the husband is head of the wife.
Christ LOVED the church. That did not make him less of its Head.
Just as an overseer should not seek to lord it over the flock, so husband should not seek to do so over the wife. But the husband is still called to headship, and accountability, even in the way which he exercises that headship.
When Joshua says as for me, and my house, we will serve the Lord, that is headship--not Roman, but headship. He was directing his houshold to the things of the Lord. And there is no indication that his family resisted that. They had seen him submit to the authority of Moses, and ultimately of God, throughout his whole life.
Every Christian is commanded to "love one another, as I have loved you." That's not a command tied to headship.
Of course it is, because the one who loved them was their Head. And they followed HIs commands. And He was sending His disciples, whom He had loved, with authority. They had seen what real loving authority looked like, and now they were to do the same. This is not Spiritual abuse. This is the Head, who has all authority commanding His disciples to teach people to observe all things He commanded them.
Matthew 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. (NKJV)
It's not an expression of headship. It comes into the discussion about being head to remind husbands that their power is not to be exploited, but to be emptied and set aside for the sake of others.
Their power is not to be set aside, but to be used as Christ did on behalf of the church, to present her without blemish. Christ exercises His power on behalf of the church. He did not use it to serve Himself.
Self-sacrificing love is not opposed to headship or authority,
But it is opposed to one person controlling another. As I keep saying, if you can put forward an understanding of headship in which there is no dynamic of control, there is no problem.
If I can say that God never calls those with authority to actually exercise it according to HIs will? Why would I say that?
Did God commend Eli for "not controlling" his sons? Definitely not.
And as I said, in the garden, there was no need for control. In heaven where God's will is done, there is no need of control.
In this sinful earth there is still at times, need for us to all be rebuked, corrected, to submit, to the headship of Christ. And He sometimes uses authorities in that work.
But you still have not put forward a clear and consistent explanation of exactly what you think headship should mean in people's day to day lives.
I have posted many Scriptures, discussed how it played out in my situation. etc.
But if you cannot see how Jesus was both Head and lived out sacrificial love, while still exercising all authority, then how will you see that the husband is called to headship that is self-sacrificing, still having authority, but using it on behalf of his wife and family?
And not because of Rome. But because we are called to imitage our Head, Christ.
